Why Darwinism Is Doomed

WorldNetDaily ^ | 09/27/2006 | Jonathan Wells

[SirLinksalot]

Why Darwinism is doomed

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted: September 27, 2006 1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Jonathan Wells, Ph.D.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

© 2006

Harvard evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould wrote in 1977: "Biology took away our status as paragons created in the image of God." Darwinism teaches that we are accidental byproducts of purposeless natural processes that had no need for God, and this anti-religious dogma enjoys a taxpayer-funded monopoly in America's public schools and universities. Teachers who dare to question it openly have in many cases lost their jobs.

The issue here is not "evolution" – a broad term that can mean simply change within existing species (which no one doubts). The issue is Darwinism – which claims that all living things are descended from a common ancestor, modified by natural selection acting on random genetic mutations.

According to Darwinists, there is such overwhelming evidence for their view that it should be considered a fact. Yet to the Darwinists' dismay, at least three-quarters of the American people – citizens of the most scientifically advanced country in history – reject it.

A study published Aug. 11 in the pro-Darwin magazine Science attributes this primarily to biblical fundamentalism, even though polls have consistently shown that half of the Americans who reject Darwinism are not biblical fundamentalists. Could it be that the American people are skeptical of Darwinism because they're smarter than Darwinists think?

On Aug. 17, the pro-Darwin magazine Nature reported that scientists had just found the "brain evolution gene." There is circumstantial evidence that this gene may be involved in brain development in embryos, and it is surprisingly different in humans and chimpanzees. According to Nature, the gene may thus harbor "the secret of what makes humans different from our nearest primate relatives."

Three things are remarkable about this report. First, it implicitly acknowledges that the evidence for Darwinism was never as overwhelming as its defenders claim. It has been almost 30 years since Gould wrote that biology accounts for human nature, yet Darwinists are just now turning up a gene that may have been involved in brain evolution.

Second, embryologists know that a single gene cannot account for the origin of the human brain. Genes involved in embryo development typically have multiple effects, and complex organs such as the brain are influenced by many genes. The simple-mindedness of the "brain evolution gene" story is breathtaking.

Third, the only thing scientists demonstrated in this case was a correlation between a genetic difference and brain size. Every scientist knows, however, that correlation is not the same as causation. Among elementary school children, reading ability is correlated with shoe size, but this is because young schoolchildren with small feet have not yet learned to read – not because larger feet cause a student to read better or because reading makes the feet grow. Similarly, a genetic difference between humans and chimps cannot tell us anything about what caused differences in their brains unless we know what the gene actually does. In this case, as Nature reports, "what the gene does is a mystery."

So after 150 years, Darwinists are still looking for evidence – any evidence, no matter how skimpy – to justify their speculations. The latest hype over the "brain evolution gene" unwittingly reveals just how underwhelming the evidence for their view really is.

The truth is Darwinism is not a scientific theory, but a materialistic creation myth masquerading as science. It is first and foremost a weapon against religion – especially traditional Christianity. Evidence is brought in afterwards, as window dressing.

This is becoming increasingly obvious to the American people, who are not the ignorant backwoods religious dogmatists that Darwinists make them out to be. Darwinists insult the intelligence of American taxpayers and at the same time depend on them for support. This is an inherently unstable situation, and it cannot last.

If I were a Darwinist, I would be afraid. Very afraid.

Get Wells' widely popular "Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jonathan Wells is the author of "The Politically Incorrect Guide™ to Darwinism and Intelligent Design" (Regnery, 2006) and Icons of Evolution (Regnery, 2000). He holds a Ph.D. in biology from the University of California at Berkeley and a Ph.D. in theology from Yale University. Wells is currently a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute in Seattle

[BrandtMichaels]

Hi Al, I vote for sarcastic.

I read up on your profile page - again - somewhat impressed. But I do beg to differ with you on Catholicism and Christian Orthodoxy views. You may wish to stop reading at this point as I'm an evangelical charismatic young-earth christian who believes every word of the Holy Bible is inspired of the Holy Spirit.

If this were not so then the prophecies written about Jesus Christ, Israel and Jerusalem (written hundreds of years before these events) would not have been fulfilled - to the letter no less!

Are you aware that the Bible speaks out against religion in every circumstance except one (the one true religion is the one that cares for widows and orphans). I do feel that Catholicism is a religion. Originating in 325AD it claims Peter and Paul as the 1st Popes - which is quite impossible seeing as how they were both dead well before 325AD. Furthermore the title of Pope is the vicar of Jesus Christ. Vicar is a synonym for substitute yet the Bible clearly states that there is no substitute for Jesus.

The best explanation I've heard is that religion is mankinds attempt to reach God while faith is God's gift to mankind. The true church is not a building but is and always has been comprised of anyone who faithfully believes in God's Word - these are referred to as saints in the Bible.

If you study any of the 'organized' christian religions closely enough you'll find there is always some point where they claim the Bible does not mean what it says (eerily similar to liberal judges, politicians and activists who constantly want to re-interpret the U.S. Constitution). For instance, the Bible does say not to worship a woman yet (in the mid-1800's no less) the virgin Mary was deified by the Catholic church. You can search the scriptures online at: http://www.blueletterbible.org

The best explanation I've read regarding evolutions' problems (part I) and a clear hypothesis for a young-earth creation the hydroplate theory (part II) is Dr. Walt Brown's book (available in hardcover or read it all online) titled In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood at: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/

[sasafras]

This is a quote from the website you linked...

"Species-to-species transitions are even harder to document. To demonstrate anything about how a species arose, whether it arose gradually or suddenly, you need exceptionally complete strata, with many dead animals buried under constant, rapid sedimentation."

There is no case to be made for intraspecies evolution or better yet no facts to prove it - thus a fish does not evolve into an elephant. If there is PROOF of this please provide the evidence. Otherwise evolution is a theory and like any theory is unsubstantiated by evidence.

I will agree that interspecies evolution of traits and genetic characteristics does exist. But there is no mathematical proof that can account for complexity of life based on the pure assumption of genetic chance as a result from environmental adaptation.

[Zon]

Why Darwinism is doomed

Global Warming -- We're Doomed!

Has a familiar hysterical ring to it.

[sasafras]

Huh ? you didnt answer my question - you pointed me to a link on the diversity of life. What you dont have Proof for intraspecies evolution? Are you telling me that you dont have a single piece of evidence where a species like a fish turned into something else like say a dog? How can it be?

[mugs99]

No, they aren't. They are three different things entirely. Unitarians believe that Jesus was fully human and not divine. Newton was one. Deists believe that a creator created the world, set it in motion, and then stepped back. The deist's God is not a personal God. They are not agnostics though; agnostics believe that it is not possible to know if there is or isn't a God. That was Darwin's position (he started out a believing Christian.)
Lol!
Your dodging. You said: "He was an agnostic, not a Unitarian, meaning he didn't think the question of God's existence was answerable." You went from not answerable to not possible. In any case, Darwin believed in intelligent design and evolution.
"I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance."... Charles Darwin
That is the way all Deists look at everything.

I'm a Deist. We are agnostics. We believe that the question of God's existence isn't answerable. To answer the question of God's existence would require proof.
Do you have that proof?

It would have been better if I'd said Darwin was a Deist, but then Unitarians would take exception. He and his wife were prominent members of the Unitarian community. He accompanied her to church every Sunday but would go for a walk while she attended services.
.

[SirLinksalot]

RE:

---

[Sun Myung Moon]'s words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism -- Jonathan Wells

---

Here is the Discovery Institute's response to
this piece of information :

---

http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:CSZTM4swmtUJ:www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php%3Fid%3D444+Truth+about+Jonathan+wells&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1

THE REAL TRUTH ABOUT JONATHAN WELLS

Overview: Since the publication of Icons of Evolution (2000), biologist Jonathan Wells hasbeen subjected to a smear campaign by Darwin-only lobbyists, who have attacked everythingfrom Dr. Wells’s integrity as a scholar to his personal religious beliefs. This fact sheet rebuts some of the most outrageous smears.

1. Is Jonathan Wells a genuine scientist?

Dr. Wells’s scientific credentials are impeccable and speak for themselves.Dr. Wells earned his Ph.D. in molecular and cell biology from the University of Californiaat Berkeley, one of America’s top research universities.Dr. Wells engaged in further research as a postdoctoral research biologist at the Universityof California at Berkeley. (Beware of false information about Dr. Wells’s post-doc put outby the “National Center for Science Education.” See Truth Sheet, #03-2, “How the NCSEMisrepresents Jonathan Wells’s Science Credentials.”)

Dr. Wells has published articles in a number of leading scientific publications, includingDevelopment, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, BioSystems, TheScientist, The American Biology Teacher, and Natural History.

2. Has the “Scientific Community” Refuted Icons of Evolution?

While Darwin-only activists shrilly denounce Dr. Wells’s book, they hardly speak for theentire scientific community.Findings presented in Icons of Evolution draw on the latest scientific research, and Dr.Wells includes more than 70 pages of documentation containing citations to the peer-reviewed scientific literature.Chapters of Icons of Evolution were peer-reviewed before publication by several scientists(including one Nobel laureate) to ensure their accuracy. These reviewers includedscientists who support Darwin’s theory of evolution and were therefore critical of Dr.Wells’ overall point of view.According to one biologist, Wells “has brilliantly exposed the exaggerated claims anddeceptions that have persisted in standard textbook discussions of biological origins formany decades.” (Dean Kenyon, Emeritus Professor of Biology, San Francisco StateUniversity)

Another biologist writes that “Wells has done a great public service” by writing his book,adding that the book’s “extensive coverage of all the icons of Darwinism… with extensiveresearch notes, makes this volume a valuable reference for a professional biologist.” (PaulChien, Professor of Biology, University of San Francisco)

Since the publication of Dr. Wells’s book, some textbooks have started to correct theerrors he identified. For example, Holt, Rinehart and Winston recently acknowledged thatit re-evaluated the use of the peppered moth and Haeckel’s embryos icons in its latesttextbook and decided against their use. If the problems identified by Dr. Wells are non-existent, why are some textbook writers already making changes?


3. Is Icons of Evolution refuted by Dr. Wells’s religion?

Unable to disprove the science in Icons of Evolution, some Darwinists have resorted toattacks on Dr. Wells’s religion instead. For example, more than 40% of the book review ofIcons by by evolutionist Jerry Coyne in Nature was devoted not to the content of the bookbut to “outing” Dr. Wells as a member of the Unification Church.Trying to shift the focus onto Dr. Wells’s religion is bigotry, not science, and it ought tooffend thoughtful Americans who support religious liberty.Purporting to “refute” Dr. Wells’s scientific views by attacking his religion is a cynicalrhetorical ploy that has no place in legitimate scientific discourse. Darwinists who attack Dr. Wells and other scientists on the basis of their religion arehypocritical. While these Darwinists complain about supposed religious motivations ofscientists critical of Darwinism, they never object to the anti-religious motives of leading Darwinists.

For example, Darwinists Francis Crick and James Watson, co-discoverers of the structureof DNA, are outspoken atheists, and Crick has indicated that his scientific research wasmotivated by a desire to undermine belief in religion.

Similarly, Darwinist Richard Dawkins asserts that “faith is one of the world’s great evils, comparable to the smallpoxvirus but harder to eradicate.”

When is the last time you heard a Darwin-only activistclaim that the scientific views of Crick, Watson, and Dawkins should be ignored becauseof their anti-religious views?


4. Does Dr. Wells misquote evolutionists?

Darwinists frequently claim they are being misquoted by scientists critical ofDarwinism—even when they aren’t. This is a debating trick employed by Darwin-onlylobbyists who don’t want to answer the scientific arguments being raised against neo-Darwinism. While Darwinists have sometimes tried to make this allegation against Jonathan Wells, the allegations aren’t supported by the evidence.

One example: In oral testimony before the Texas State Board of Education in July, 2003,biologist David Hillis complained that Dr. Wells quoted him “extensively” in Icons ofEvolution and alleged that the quotes were “taken completely out of context.”o In reality, Dr. Wells quoted a mere four sentences from Prof. Hillis on a singlepage in Icons, and none of the material was taken out of context.o

The quotes cited by Dr. Wells came from a chapter by Prof. Hillis in the book, Homology: The Hierarchical Basis of Comparative Biology, edited by biologistBrian K. Hall.

Ironically, Dr. Hall also peer-reviewed the chapter in Icons ofEvolution that quoted Prof. Hillis’s comments. Is Prof. Hall guilty ofmisunderstanding what Prof. Hillis was saying as well?o For a detailed refutation of Prof. Hillis’s spurious misquotation claim, see“Reponse to Dr. David Hillis” by Jonathan Wells, available at www.discovery.org/crsc.

[SirLinksalot]

Has a familiar hysterical ring to it.

Similarity does not always imply identity.

[muawiyah]

Ah, yes, and we only have several different Domains and Kingdoms of Life on this one planet, and that's only if we group all the Archaeobacter together into one Domain, and group the retroviruses with the other viruses.

Something to think about ~ these groups are really different in many fundamental ways. But, the possibilities don't stop there ~ at the moment efforts are underway by experts in the field to demonstrate that archaeotes, procaryotes, and eucaryotesall arise out of viruses, and not the other way around.

Bet some of you had no idea there's dispute on the matter eh?!

Given the probability that the tools necessary for life arise directly out of perturbations in space/time, life elsewhere should resemble one or more of the types of life we have here.

In fact, it's even money that folks won't be able to tell the difference (at the molecular level).

[Theo]

"Kind" was not used to mean "species" in the most ancient of the texts. Anything before Linnaeus involving "kind" or "species" means little more than "geneal outline" and "it's an animal" or "it's a plant", or "it's another green thing"

Which version of the Bible are you reading? It's pretty clear from Genesis 1 that within the general category of "animals" there are many different "kinds."

If you've got a few minutes, let me encourage you to take a look at this page -- http://www.answersingenesis.org/pbs_nova/0924ep1.asp#kinds -- for an exploration of how those who adhere to the "Biblical creationist model" interpret "kinds."

[HeraThera]

"I do not believe life on this planet evolved from proteins created by lightning in raindrops or pond scum."

The science points to a Big Bang which is compatible with God starting the process of evolution. Evolution is not a scary concept to believers if analyzed objectively without an agenda to disprove God. In fact, as explained in the good professor's book, "Finding Darwin's God", this science supports the concept of free will, disproves God as a charlatan or magician, provides for a divine spark to the beginning of the world, and gives an explanation of the Genesis' accounting of creation over time, if we accept that God's concept of time is quite different from ours. Also, miracles can be defined as God's intervention outside the natural laws created by Him.

[finnman69]

You mean like the fish that crawled out of the ocean and evolved into mammals, like dogs?

[Names Ash Housewares]

Speed of light is a quantifiable provable known, doppler shift as well. We know the stars are very far away and took a very long time for that light to reach us. A much longer time than some faiths will accept as fact.
I have not seen evidence convincing me that a supernatural force created an aged looking universe.

There are *thousands* of religions on this planet. With many varying creation and nature of the universe beliefs.
They all have one thing in common. Faith in unseen supernatural forces.

"a bigname scientist was giving a lecture on astronomy. After the lecture, an elderly lady came up and told the scientist that he had it all wrong. 'The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise." The scientist asked "And what is the turtle standing on?"
To which the lady triumphantly replied: "You're very clever, young man, but it's no use -- it's turtles all the way down."

[Zon]

Similarity does not always imply identity.

True, not always or even often. Yet in this instance they are one in the same.

[muawiyah]

Sorry, the concept of "species" was unknown. You'd best believe ancient herdsmen tried their best to crossbreed animals, and where they succeeded they got mules and jennies, thereby encouraging futher experimentation, so "kind" simply wasn't the sort of thing we've come to expect out of our modern word "species".

"Kind" merely reflects what's going on in your head when the braincells catch and store images in memory. Doesn't have a darned thing to do with what the critter or the plant has in it's innards.

[tacticalogic]

I was not aware of that. Do you have references supporting your claim regarding the motives of the original author(s) of the theory of evolution?

It is not my claim. It is a logical consequence of the claims of the author. If it is indeed as he describes it, "first and foremost a weapon against religion" then that would be the primary motive of the author in constructing it. The author's basis for making such an implicit claim remains unknown.

[js1138]

The author's basis for making such an implicit claim remains unknown.

Fact that he has his head up the Reverand Moon's moonpie is a clue.

[sasafras]

"The theory of evolution neither states nor implies that "life was created by nothing", thus your request makes no sense."

I would disagree that progressive secularists would agree with your assertion. Evolution is used as a means to dissuade our population that God had a hand in creating life. This is the argument being played out. Secularists vs. Christian Fundamentalists. Secularists have won because Christians have not been willing to challenge their assertions on Evolution and the Big Bang. Two theories which have no proof or are mathematically impossible.

Cant evolution be used a scientific theory, to describe how a single cell would evolve into a more complex (many cell) organism? If so what is the natural selection process to create the first strand of DNA? These have to be answered before evolution can move from theory to fact. A theory should be open to challenge; if not then it is dead. The more we know the more we understand that life is not a series of random chance events.

Evolutionists have used their theory to "disprove" God - to say otherwise is refuting the current debate being waged in our schools. Evolution is a tool to claim something that is not provable.

[Names Ash Housewares]

"And yet in all that space and time we are the only known life in the universe. Funny how two people take the same data and develop different opinions. "

We have only listened and looked for others a tiny fraction of a heartbeat of time. We are infants yet in exploring space. The tiniest of steps have been taken so far.
And yes, it is quite possible we are the only ones too. But only looking for others will bring answers.
Perhaps radio is a very primative technology. They could use something far more advanced, maybe quantum modulation or who knows what. It would be as if we were using smoke signals and they were using radio. Space is quite vast afterall. A serious search for evidence for anyone else has only just begun.

Now if the "Zagon Empire" or whatever greets us one day, and explains their religous belief that matches one of our many earth beliefs. That just might make a believer out of me. I just hope they dont greet us with an "Allah Akbar".


"No you assume it looked the same. Unless you have a time traveling gizmo in your pocket there is no way to "prove" your statement."

If I see dogs. I know there are puppies too.
Observed data of the physical world around us has never produced any evidence of complex systems of anykind simply appearing from nothing. That requires faith in supernatural forces.

"We agree that freedom to believe differently is whats great (one thing) about this country."

Agreed! Our saving grace so to speak.

[sasafras]

"You mean like the fish that crawled out of the ocean and evolved into mammals, like dogs?"

Oh you have an example? great please share with us.

[Last Visible Dog]

I'm a Deist. We are agnostics. We believe that the question of God's existence isn't answerable. To answer the question of God's existence would require proof. Do you have that proof?

God by definition is a matter of faith - I think you are barking up the wrong tree.